Shouting at the ocean with pebbles in my mouth since 2008. The subjects of this blog include forensics, the war-on-terror detainees, the Duke lacrosse case, the Knox/Sollecito case, and the academic world as it intersects the political. It will sometimes examine issues of particular interest to Wilmington, NC and the University of North Carolina at Wilmington.

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Charlie's

Recently I posted a response to a post by John in Carolina (JinC). As part of that post I touched up an alleged incident at a bar in Durham called Charlie’s. My reason was that JinC had initially expressed doubts about two witnesses who confirmed the disputed story to KC Johnson, and this troubled me greatly. At the time I had no wish to offer an opinion on whether the incident did or did not happen, but I was concerned that JinC said that KC Johnson and I were “hyping” the story (http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-are-kc-johnson-halkides-hyping.html). Therefore, I posted a comment at JinC to indicate my support for the DL players on a subsequent JinC post. JinC seized upon my comment to ask for my opinion about the Charlie’s incident on the grounds that, to put forth the opinion that the incident is anything other than a hoax is in effect to harm the players. I would like to consider the events at Charlie’s before returning to its relationship to the players.

Jill Hopman wrote an article in the Duke Chronicle in which she lashed out at some Duke Lacrosse players for allegedly slamming shots and behaving obnoxiously (http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2006/03/28/Columns/Acute.Embarrassment-1751335.shtml). Jane Stancill and Anne Blythe’s article in the Raleigh News and Observer (N&O) discusses how Hopman felt ostracized (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/423966.html).Their second article only devotes a portion of a paragraph to Hopman’s allegation (http://www.newsobserver.com/122/story/424563.html). Newsweek (4/10/06) noted Hopman’s allegation but also reported a alternative version of events, “(A source close to the families who did not wish to be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter said there were three players in the bar and they made a single, regretful toast to the team, whose season is on hold for now.)” Sally Fogarty, mother of two DL players, disputed the events, "There was absolutely no scene of lacrosse players at Charlie's yelling 'Duke Lacrosse' after the false allegations. My daughter was actually at the bar with Steph Sparks-Bob Ektrand’s sister-in-law-and two lacrosse players-one of whom is my son."

There are three possibilities with respect to the Charlie’s incident. Jill Hopman’s account of rowdy lacrosse players might be accurate. Or her account might be exaggerated, either deliberately or unconsciously. Finally, her account may be complete fiction.

There are some things about Ms. Hopman’s account that strike me as questionable. Some have asked how the event could possibly be true, given that Hopman indicates that members of the media were there. If they had seen such behavior, they would have reported it. This argument is not airtight; the reporters might have interpreted the players actions differently from Ms. Hopman or decided that the players needed to let off some steam. I wonder whether the lacrosse team had twenty players of legal age to enter a bar, and if underage players were there, it suggests that the person checking IDs must have been deceived. Perhaps she meant to say that only some of the twenty were lacrosse players, but if so, it would suggest that she is a poor reporter.

On the other hand, the idea that someone will make up a story out of whole cloth when that story could be refuted by so many people is also hard to credit. OneSpook wrote here at VfW, “In my opinion only, I believe that the reason Johnson found her “credible” is that (1) there were witnesses that collaborated her version of the events, and (2) that it seems hard to imagine that a first-year law student would make up an entirely false story of a public event that was, by her own admission, witnessed by many others.”

Sally Fogarty’s denial does not cover as much ground as one would wish, in two ways.First, unless her children were at the bar the whole evening, they cannot discuss what might have happened in their absence.This point, however, cuts both ways: It also means that one can believe that some players slammed shots without disputing the Fogarty’s veracity, and I do not question that they are being truthful.Second, the Fogarty children have not said what did happen, only what did not happen. Is their account of what happened similar to the Newsweek story or not?

Some have questioned other aspects of the story. Tarheel Hawkeye asked me in a comment thread at JinC, “How about telling us why the three reporters didn't get the story into the news media. There was a feeding frenzy at the time, but nobody reported anything about lacrosse players at Charlies. And if there were three cops there, why didn't any of them get the word out to their colleagues [Gottlieb and Himan] in the Durham PD?”Good questions, but what could the police at the bar tell their two colleages? It is not a crime to slam shots (assuming it happened). If there were reporters saw rowdy behavior, we should consider two possibilities. One is that they saw the events with a different frame-of-reference than Hopman’s, thinking perhaps that the players needed to let off steam.The other is that one of the reporters in Hopman’s account is Blythe or Stancill, in which case the reporters did get the story into the media. Hopman’s account does not name the reporters, and their identity is unknown, to the best of my knowledge. My conclusion is that the evidence is not strong enough to support a claim that Hopman’s story is utterly without basis in fact.

OneSpook wrote to me to speculate about Hopman’s perspective,“Hopman, steeped in her ‘feminist ideology’ was spring-loaded to believe the worst about the lacrosse team. She likely believed that at least some of them were guilty of a horrible crime against a woman. Thus, not having even the slightest clue about how men think and react in certain situations, and failing to even consider that the rape claim might be a complete lie, she viewed the toast she purports to have seen and felt an ‘Acute Embarassment’ at the behavior exhibited. And it is obvious that she laid it on, as thickly as possible; her account is hyperbolic in the extreme.”

Ultimately, I just don’t think the DL players would choose to behave as Ms. Hopman described.On the other hand, I agree with OneSpook that Ms. Hopman is unlikely to have made up a story out of whole cloth. Thus, I am left with case two, that she exaggerated the events that she witnessed.To me the Newsweek alternative version has the ring of truth.

Now that we have considered each case, let us ask ourselves what if the first case were true?In retrospect, it would not reflect all that badly on the players. Knowing that they were innocent and feeling marginalized by their school, let us say that they slammed shots and yelled. In a college bar this would not exactly be atypical behavior.Moreover, as OneSpook has again helpfully pointed out, the innocent players may have felt much as the American soldiers at Bastogne felt. I would hope that one of them did slam a shot to the 101st Airborne. In the context of 2006 it could be argued, this hypothetical behavior might have reflected an inability to assess the environment in Durham and the need for good public relations. In other words one could argue that if the players did exactly what Hopman had described, they would have been guilty of poor judgment.

Even more enlightening is the comparison of the hypothetical Charlie’s incident with other things the players did or were alleged to have done. When I discuss the case with those only slightly familiar with it, the use of racial slurs at the party comes up most frequently. People have also taken the Georgetown incident to be a case of gay-bashing, and Ryan McFayden’s email may also have come up once or twice (most students of the DL case know that these events were grossly mischaracterized), but I have never heard anyone bring up uncouth behavior at Charlie’s. In my view the incident does not belong in the front rank of events that gave the lacrosse players a worse reputation than they deserved.

Moreover, Duke Dad (who would seem to have a more personal and direct stake in the reputation of Duke students than I do) has indicated in his comments here that DL players slamming shots in a bar would not be a big deal for him, likewise Gregory. For these reasons I politely but firmly resist JinC’s implication that entertaining the possibility of Hopman’s story being even partly true is to turn the players into “collateral damage.” Duke lacrosse supporters can take a range of opinions with respect to what happened and still remain DL supporters in good standing. To extend OneSpook’s football analogy, I may just be a second-string player on the specialty teams, but we are all on the same team with respect to our fundamental interpretations of the case and our complete support of the team and especially of the three indicted players and their families.

Finally, let us return to the question that made me bring up the Charlie’s incident in the first place. In “KC Johnson Now” JinC initially expressed doubts about the existence of two confidential sources, and I discussed in my response why this struck me as being a serious matter. JinC disputes my reading of his words in his follow-up post “Chris Halkides’ Important Opportunity.” It seems to me that JinC is now saying that KC Johnson’s sources existed but that they are not credible or that KC Johnson should not have believed them.If that is so, then what is “settled” is that the sources existed, and JinC and I can agree to disagree about the interpretation of his earlier post.

Appendix

Stancill and Blythe’s second article pairs Hopman’s story with the candlelight vigil in the same paragraph. This is not the only time in the article in which the authors appear to be unsympathetic to the players.I think it is not an article of which the N&O should be proud.I contacted the reporters to ask about their sources, but I have not received a reply. AMac has indicated that he or she has attempted to contact Ms. Hopman.

34 comments:

Anonymous
said...

It seems to me you are going with the "exaggerated" theory here Chris. As I indicated to you in an e-mail I think at some point a story passes the point of exaggeration into fiction. In my opinion this story does exactly that.

Going back to KC's comment quite some time ago that I found "bizarre":The night after the party, the team did not gather "at a local bar to drink and chant "Duke Lacrosse"." The night after the party, there was a team event (with Pressler in attendance) at a local bowling alley.

The "Duke lacrosse" chant story, which allegedly occurred on the 25th or 26th, is vehemently disputed. The person who made the claim, Jill Hopman, stood by her story to me and seemed credible; an equally credible (non-lacrosse player) source who was in the bar that night strongly denied it. I wasn't there, so I've never either used the story or challenged Hopman.

But even assuming Hopman's story to be true, this wasn't a "team" event. There were only three Duke lacrosse players (all 21 or over) at the bar that night.

This quote can be found in the comments of KC's 8/13/07 post 'Group Profile: Below-the-Radar Members'. If there were only 3 members of the DL team there and Hopman said 20, I find that to be more than an exaggeration. KC said 3 in no uncertain terms meaning to me he finds the number of players present to be a fact and not a theory. The fact that KC said Hopman seemed credible was to me another very odd thing about this. If he had mentioned the other witnesses he spoke to at that time I might have been more inclined to find KC's reaction more understandable. Hopman said that some of the DL players there were her "close friends". It would seem to me she is talking about at least 3 players and if she were "close friends" with them, she would certainly know who was or was not a DL player. Again, this goes beyond exaggeration, in my opinion.

The other version presented (the one regretful toast by 2 or three players) is in complete contrast to Hopman's version: While I drank a Corona, watching them get plastered and stumbling, yelling about Duke lacrosse, the rest of the bar looked on with derision and repulsion. and Nevertheless, they ordered round after round of shots, at times slamming the glasses down on tables and cheering "Duke Lacrosse!".

It may be kind to call this story an exaggeration but it my opinion it should be described as fiction.

While there are myriad aspects of the Lacrosse Hoax which can be highlighted, picked apart, and fully explored....

.....I find this Hopman issue right at the top of the list of "Insignificant Things That Took Place in Durham in the Spring of 2006".

Realizing that it will be a difficult mission for those whose sole purpose now in 2009 is navel-gazing from a back row seat of the 20/20 Lacrosse Hoax movie they keep playing inside their heads......

......but in Durham and the entire Triangle in the Spring of 2006 there were innumerable scenarios taking place daily like the one Hopman offered up for consumption.

Such as the dynamics being played out among the Trinity Park residents.

Or the endless hype coming from the campus of NCCU on any given day.

Everyone wanted to tell their "bad, bad stories" about the lacrosse players.

This Hopman topic---if it happened or it didn't, and whatever element of reality it holds or doesn't hold---is just not a prime player in this case!

KC came to the Triangle many times as he investigated this case for the book and for Wonderland.

On any given trip that he made, he could have been sidetracked by 20 stories and tales told by "observers, friends, and witnesses" to something a lacrosse player might have been seen doing.

He and Stuart were writing a book which deals with the Hoax on the factual and the provable level.

For KC to have spent time on such trivia as what a Duke alumna (Hopman) might have witnessed inside a bar where most people were under the glass and where some lacrosse players might have been trying to let off some steam from the stress of what was happening....

......would have been a wildly useless endeavor.

KC, and Stuart as well, were in quite a different position than are some idle bloggers and current 20/20 fora kibitzers of trivia in 2009.

Since the N&O did change course after their initial and intentionally biased, IMO, coverage of the Hoax.....why is it a crime to give them some credit for that?

After the editorial pages hosted, nay sought, the horrific and archaic work of Allan Gurganus---(an openly and flamboyantly gay writer with a flair for tales of the mint-julep-antebellum-blues and descriptive phrases of the bodies of young male athletes)---and the old stand-by hustler Timothy Tyson---(who apparently never goes through a day without discussing the evils of the vanilla suburbs)---the N&O editorial editors chose to back off all commentary on the lacrosse case with the exception of the occasional generic chronicling and updates of the proceedings.

Joe Neff, along with Ben Niolet, stepped up to the journalistic plate and provided a series of excellence in investigative reporting.

I still had to struggle to even get a strong letter on the editorial page; however, by June and beyond, the Diva had broken through even the moldy-fingered keyboards of the letters editor.

It was an enormous letdown for most at the N&O----none more so than for those who run the paper from the top---when they saw they could no longer embrace such a juicy story which fit to a tee every single one of the meta-narratives on which they thrive.

But Joe Neff saved that paper and that paper employs Joe Neff.

Why on earth would KC have alienated anyone at the N&O by lambasting and criticizing Anne Blythe for her Hopman coverage.....when KC had no factual evidence one way or the other?

Only his instincts or a hunch.

It is impossible to explain to bloggers who operate by using rumor, innuendo, and their own tendentious "feelings" as they scribble away.....

.....but the glorious baby dah-ling does not, and has never, operated that way.

That's why he's KC Johnson and they're not.

For the life of me, I cannot comprehend how a group of people could exert so much effort toward such a trivial scenario.

Nothing about this Hopman idiocy would have been a blip on the radar screen of the Lacrosse Hoax.

As Chris indicated, I emailed Ms. Hopman yesterday, asking only if she would state the time of the incident she described in the Chronicle.

"Saturday night" is too broad to be of much use in evaluating alternative accounts. E.g. not knowing when the 20 drunk lacrosse players were claimed to have been carousing in Charlie's, it's hard to tell if Sally Fogarty's "nothing happened" assertion covers the time in question.

As of this writing, Ms. Hopman hasn't responded. If she does, I'll comment again.

At JinC, I speculated that Ms. Hopman's account might be correct except for one detail: that her close friends among the ~20 carousing Duke students were on the lacrosse team.

KC's two witnesses might indeed have witnessed a scene of rowdy drunkenness. If Ms. Hopman told them that some of the drinkers were friends of hers on the Duke Varsity Lacrosse Team--would they doubt it? Hence, their corroborations and Sally Fogarty's denial could all be sincere.

I have no idea if this is true, but it's parsimonious.

I agree with Debrah's comment above, that the Charlie's issue isn't very important. But it is one of the loose ends. And another instance of the dueling "did happen/didn't happen" narratives that in some respects defines the Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax/Frame.

I'd also note the malfeasance of the Chronicle in posting a purportedly factual account under the guise of an Opinion piece. I recall journalism as having something to do with Who-What-When-Where. "What" and "Where" are covered. "Who" is indistinct, and "When" (Saturday night) is too vague to permit straightforward verification.

Chris wrote:I wonder whether the lacrosse team had twenty players of legal age to enter a bar, and if underage players were there, it suggests that the person checking IDs must have been deceived.

According to the players' birth dates on the NTO, [http://hackedbannedandlockeddown.yuku.com/topic/906]twenty of the players were 21 years of age or older on March 25, 2006. We also know Collin Finnerty used a fake ID in a Georgetown bar four months earlier. I have seen photos of Ryan McFadyen drinking at Shooters well before his 21st birthday. I don't think it was too difficult to get fake IDs.

It is hardly a waste of timeto see who is lieing in the Charlie'sscandal. The Chronicle, Herald-Sun,News & Observer, Time, Newsweek,The New York Times, all ran withthis story. There were never anyretractions or corrections, except for one "alteration" [Newsweek].Where are the denials by the lacrosse players? Is Chapel Hill considered a front-row seat?

As I have said on a number of other occasions, I became involved in this issue only when a Durham-based blogger attacked me for not criticizing the Blythe article in the N&O. To my knowledge, this blogger (who publishes the John-in-Carolina blog) has never done any direct reporting on the incident. (He has said that he spoke with unnamed "crews" on the question, though I'm not aware of any media organization in which "crews" do reporting.)

I responded that in the course of researching the book, I had encountered a source who I trusted completely who said nothing happened; but that when I contacted Hopman, she stood by her story, and produced two other witnesses who confirmed her story. I considered my confidential source more credible than Hopman, who I don't know. So, as any readers of either DIW or UPI know, I never mentioned the Charlie's incident in either the book or in my blog posts, since I didn't consider it likely or even probably to have occurred in the way Hopman described. At the same time, since Hopman and two others stood by her story, since my source wasn't in a position to talk to the N&O at the time the article appeared, and since there were dozens of articles that clearly did violate principles of media ethics, it hardly seemed fair to criticize the N&O, either. (I have, of course, repeatedly criticized the paper for its pre-Nov. 2006 editorials, and for its "all-false" interview with Crystal Mangum.)

This approach struck me at the time, and continues to strike me, as the appropriate one on this issue. Yet the Durham-based bloger has gone on and on and on--first suggesting that Hopman couldn't have provided me with sources, then conceding that these sources probably existed but couldn't be credible, then ruminating that my refusal to label Hopman's allegations a "hoax" meant that I probably believed the allegations, and (most recently) referring outright to Hopman's story as a "hoax." (Again, to my knowledge, this Durham-based blogger has done no original reporting on the issue, even to the minor extent of contacting Hopman, despite the enormous importance that he apparently attaches to the matter.)

While UPI has been extensively reviewed, the only published source (to my knowledge) that has criticized the book for not mentioning the Charlie's incident is the many posts of the Durham-based blogger.

In the course of writing UPI, the entire manuscript had to be cleared by a libel attorney hired by the publisher. Even if I had been so inclined to label Hopman's story a "hoax," it's laughable to believe such a claim would have been allowed, with three people saying one thing (including one on the record) and one saying the opposite, and with a much tamer version of what strikes me as essentially an innocent event that conceivably could have been misinterpreted (a version that included a comment from a lacrosse parent) included in Newsweek.

Obviously, some bloggers are more cavalier when using an extraordinarily strong term like "hoax." Their credibility should be evaluated accordingly.

KC Johnson said: "While UPI has been extensively reviewed, the only published source (to my knowledge) that has criticized the book for not mentioning the Charlie's incident is the many posts of the Durham-based blogger."

Wow. I must have missed it when JIC said that. Pretty darn poor of him to be so critical of a great book over such a minor incident. Perhaps he feels this other Lacrosse "Hoax" deserved several chapters or even a sequel.

Symposium ThemeAbortion: Research, Ethics, and Activism is a symposium highlighting the power and relevance of primary source documentation to the history and future of abortion.

1:00 p.m. - 2:15 p.m. Concurrent sessions

1. Student Activism and Organizing: What Role Does it Play at Duke? with with Betsy Alden, Kenan Institute for Ethics; Mazella Hall, Counseling and Psychological Services and their students Wintta Woldermariam, Jill Hopman, and Lauren Fath from Duke; and Leah Edwards and Liz Peterson from the Feminist Majority Foundation (Breedlove Room)

*******

So clearly Jill Hopman is not a disinterested observer during the LAX crisis.

She is an avowed feminist and student activist well-enough known to be invited as a speaker at official Duke programs.

How does this affect her credibility in the LAX case?I think quite a bit.

I should add that there are certain coincidences between the actions of Jill Hopman and Tara Levicy in the lacrosse affair-- although Levicy's role was certainly a magnitude or more greater.

However, both Hopman and Levcy are avowed feminists. Both of them were activists in college. Both of them appeared on panels at feminists symposia.

Both of them tried to use the lacrosse case to advance their ideology.Both of them exaggerated incidents (Levicy the SANE exam and Hopman the Charlie's episode.)Both of them told false and misleading stories. Both of them insisted in maintaining their false stories long after the truth started to emerge.

Again, the Charlie's episode is trivial compared to Levicy's actions in initiating and maintaining the frame-up, but the parallels between Hopman and Levicy are worth considering.

sceptical wrote:So clearly Jill Hopman is not a disinterested observer during the LAC crisis.

She is an avowed feminist and student activist well-enough known to be invited as a speaker at official Duke programs.

How does this affect her credibility in the LAX case?I think quite a bit.

Well, Hopman did pass up the candlelight vigil to play softball and drink beer. I guess Sally Fogarty's witnesses - three Duke lacrosse players (two current - one former) and a former Duke lacrosse coach who happens to be Bob Eckstrand's wife's sister and who is employed by Bob and Samantha's law firm - missed it as well.

"Despite the increasing prevalence of issues like sexual assault on campus, senior Marissa Bohrer and sophomores Jill Hopman and Jessica West were convinced that Duke had a noticeable lack of feminist organizations. So, they decided to do something about it."

Being a feminist and an activist doesn't make one a liar any more than does belonging to another interested party. Sally Fogarty is the one who called Jill Hopman a "pathetic liar." I wonder if Sally's witnesses were at Charlie's the whole time Hopman was at Charlie's? Might have been a dull night for Gibbs - he was too young to drink.

Being a feminist and an activist doesn't make one a liar any more than does belonging to another interested party.

I agree. However, I don't think Sally Fogarty is calling Hopman a "pathetic liar" because she is a feminist. I believe she is certain the story Hopman tells is both pathetic and a lie. As far as the time frame goes if Fogarty has knowledge that those were the only two Lacrosse players present at the bar at any time that night, then the story is a pathetic lie regardless of the time frame.

Hopman's stated motivation for spreading this story is because of the "acute embarrassment" she suffered because of the shot slamming behavior. I am sorry but in my imho, she has an agenda and being embarrassed is not going to prompt her to write op-eds and letters to the editor and give various interviews.

RedMountain wrote...I agree. However, I don't think Sally Fogarty is calling Hopman a "pathetic liar" because she is a feminist.

Neither do I, I thought you and sceptical were doing that.

I don't believe Sally Fogarty attacked Hopman because she dislikes feminists and I don't believe Hopman criticized the behavior she claims she witnessed at Charlie's because she doesn't like Duke lacrosse players. If we are going to point out Hopman may have a feminist agenda, we should also note the likelihood that Sally Fogarty also has an agenda. She is the mother of a member of the Duke lacrosse team who is involved in a law suit against Duke. Sally is quoted in the lawsuit.

RedMountain wrote...As far as the time frame goes if Fogarty has knowledge that those were the only two Lacrosse players present at the bar at any time that night, then the story is a pathetic lie regardless of the time frame.

How could she know that? Maybe there is a surveillence video? A (somewhat sober) witness who was in Charlie's from early evening until closing and could identify every member of the lacrosse team?

RedMountain wrote...I am sorry but in my imho, she [Hopman] has an agenda and being embarrassed is not going to prompt her to write op-eds and letters to the editor and give various interviews.

Red, are you saying it prompted her to lie?

NY Times April 1, 2006 :

"It was just sitting there knowing that a candlelight vigil was held at their house, while they are slamming down the shots on the bar," Hopman said Friday.

I wonder if she knew who lived at 610 N. Buchanan and recognized the residents among the alleged shot slammers?

Anonymous said...inmyhumbleopinion said.... Neither do I, I thought you and sceptical were doing that.

To quote a terrific poem: "Integrity is when you say You just can't have it BE BOTH ways."

You know I support feminist causes but I don't support advancing those causes by making stuff up. Bad people happen to good causes all the time.

This story has a lot of holes and just doesn't ring true. John has done a good job of pointing those holes out and KC has done a good job of avoiding saying exactly what he believes here. Chris has taken the kind road with the theory of the innocent exaggerations.

I am frankly surprised that you find nothing amiss with the shot slamming story. The imho I know would never let some pet theory fly by without ripping it to shreds by use of common sense and logical analysis.

RedMountain wrote... I am frankly surprised that you find nothing amiss with the shot slamming story. The imho I know would never let some pet theory fly by without ripping it to shreds by use of common sense and logical analysis.

As you know, Red, I frustrated many a commenter at TalkLeft with the mantra "we don't know." We don't know enough about Fogarty's version to determine that Hopman is lying. There is not one bit of PROOF that she is. I thought Chris did an excellent job of addressing the "holes" in Hopman's story.

My guess is the truth lies somewhere in between the two versions, though I find it more likely that Hopman's version is closer to the truth than this version:

"there were three players in the bar and they made a single, regretful toast to the team, whose season is on hold for now."

Just hours earlier the players were stunned by the news that they were forfeiting the next two games. They received this shocking news one hour before game time of what was to be one of the biggest games of the season. According to Pressler's book,"the players were livid." They left the team's meeting room so their parents could meet with Pressler and the Duke admins. According to Pressler's book, "the highly charged meeting lasted more than five hours" and ended with many parents "sobbing."

A single, regretful toast to the team? The three at Charlie's that night must have been a lot calmer than the guys who Bissey described at the party held two weeks earlier. I would think dancers running off with $800 would be a lot less upsetting to the players than the forfeiture of two games. I wonder where everyone else went to blow off steam?

Now that is the inmyhumbleopinion I know. Many thanks for helping define the time-line even further. If I recall the meeting ended early evening. I don't expect the Lacrosse team went drinking while the parents were at the meeting during the day. And Hopman does say "Saturday night marked a first for me. It was the first time that I have ever been embarrassed to be a Duke student. And I hope that it never happens again." So we know it was sometime Saturday night probably eightish or so based on the candlelight vigil comment and just to give the kids time to dump all their parents that flew in from all over the country so they could go out drinking.

Wait a minute. Does it sound plausible that they would dump their parents and go out drinking after that meeting? A meeting where many of the parents were sobbing. I am sure if by some remote chance the parents were at Charlie's with half the team Hopman would have noticed and I also highly doubt they would behave the way Hopman describes it with parents in tow.

" ... We don't know enough about Fogarty's version to determine that Hopman is lying. There is not one bit of PROOF that she is. I thought Chris did an excellent job of addressing the "holes" in Hopman's story."

That statement is absolutely correct.

In *my* humble opinion, IMHO has made the very best commentary on this thread of any of us, myself included.

And in the end, the events are in dispute, which is the principal reason Johnson did not use it as an example in his book, a decision for which he has drawn the unwarranted wrath of John in Carolina and others.

Good old John has stated that he believes Hopman's story is a "hoax" just like Mangun's story was a hoax. And while there exists significant, compelling and extensive evidence and PROOF that Mangum's story was a hoax, no such PROOF, or anything even close to it exists to disprove Hopman's story.

Then IMHO very clearly posits her own "guess" or theory: "My guess is the truth lies somewhere in between the two versions, though I find it more likely that Hopman's version is closer to the truth than this version:

"there were three players in the bar and they made a single, regretful toast to the team, whose season is on hold for now."

My own guess and theory is close to IMHO's but I believe there is a good deal of hyperbole in Hopman's version.

20 lacrosse player? No way. I've been on sports teams. When members of a team roll into a bar, they are often quickly joined by friends, wannabes, and random persons already there. Any or all of them might have offered a toast and several more might have occurred.

And so, that's another "theory," just like IMHO's self proclaimed "guess." At least IMHO, I, and others at least frame our opinions as "guesses," while good old John insists *his* opinion is the TRUTH and Hopman's story is a "hoax."

That's the difference.

And the fact remains, and likely always will, that none of us know enough about ANY of the versions of the events that evening to determine the TRUTH.

I always thought the 'moral' of that one was summed up by one character who said that if all these different types of birds decided to band together, people would not stand a chance. Interesting how this admittedly minor story within the entire context of the Duke Lacrosse case has caused so many to flock together that have not done so in the past.

> Are you suggesting the Duke student daily newspaper THE CHRONICLE does not know how to perform it's job?

I was the one who made that claim. The Chronicle published Hopman's opinion piece, but it was clearly more of a news story. "Last Saturday night in Charlie's Bar, such-and-such people did such-and-such things. We were disgusted."

With the exception of Hopman's account of her emotions, she offered a report of an event--an incident that nobody else had (or has) come forward to recount.

In other words, in the heat of the Rush To Judgment, The Chronicle's editors failed to apply journalistic standards (Who-What-When-Where) to a news story.

If those editors had Done Their Job, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

What Really Happened? Who knows? Hopman's clammed up (from her point of view, there's presumably no advantage in cleaning up the mess she made). We don't even know when the alleged toasting took place.

My own view is that Hopman may have taken some license in telling her pals (KC's corroborating witnesses) that she recognized Lacrosse Team friends among a group of rowdies. That twist would have turned a boring evening into a Great Anecdote, worth writing about!

But I could well be wrong.

With so much else to write about, KC and ST didn't cover this incident in UPI. I don't see how they can be faulted for that. An ambiguous, partly-corroborated story: even if Hopman's claims were true, they don't say much.

Johnson and Taylor didn't hinder anyone else in investigating and writing about Charlie's.

With Hopman silent, witnesses from that night would have to be located and persuaded to go on the record. A difficult task, 3 years later.

About Me

I am a biochemist who specializes in the chemical modification of proteins and the synthesis of potential enzyme inhibitors. I am particularly interested in the chemistry of phosphorus and sulfur as it can be applied to biochemical problems.